Trivial things you don't understand/mildly annoy you

[Honkytonk]

It's stuff like the schemes that give big companies free labour through those on jobseekers that get my goat.

When I was on jobseekers, I would have been happy to work 'for free' for a local business for a reasonable set of hours to 'earn' my money- it would have given me an opportunity to get experience and possibly led to an actual job down the line. As it was I was told I had to work 20hrs a week for Poundland for what amounted to just over £3 an hour, and didn't include travel costs. If I had taken the position and not argued it, I would have lost money because I'd have to pay train fare every bloody day!

A lot of people are feckless and lazy, but a lot of others do actually not enjoy being on benefits.

[horlock07]

I know sod all about criminal law, but from the outside looking in, the Detective acts in a seemingly serene way that not only caused a murderer to admit to killing a missing girl, but also to killing another one and locating both of their bodies.

Our law system is fucked if the policeman is punished, and the MURDERER does not get the second life sentence he should get. I signed the petition.

I don't disagree with the sentiment, but this just sums up a further area of stupidity with the legal system.

[chalkies_shorts]

Perhaps its just my age but the lads they had on breakfast TV this morning moaning about the suggestion that they should do voluntary work in order to collect their benefits? His argument seemed to be that by doing that he would be working for nothing, unlike collecting his benefit and doing nothing?

They also had a lad in the studio who was moaning that the job centres don't help him get a job as none of the staff are interested. They ended with asking him what he wanted them to do and he suggested he wanted an internship with a marketing company, perhaps he should try and find one himself rathern than expecting someone else to sort it, just a thought.

I know this makes me a grumpy sod but I just cannot get my head round the fact that its apparently a disgusting thing to do to suggest that people claiming the dole do something in return for the benefit. I accept that finding a job takes time but from my experience it isn't a 35 hour a week process.

If he can't market himself why should someone take him on to market their goods,

[dagrumpymunki]

Perhaps its just my age but the lads they had on breakfast TV this morning moaning about the suggestion that they should do voluntary work in order to collect their benefits? His argument seemed to be that by doing that he would be working for nothing, unlike collecting his benefit and doing nothing?

I'll put aside the presence of that word in the first sentence, and just assume it's an error.

My issue with this whole policy, and the "me to, me to" version of it that Labour are also peddling is that it pays absolutely no attention to the facts in relation to welfare spending. Which are, in no particular order:

- Predicted Public spending for 2013 is £718billion
- The total welfare bill of £112billion a year across local and national government
- Unemployed benefits make up a £6billion or so
- Although some of the other welfare spending, like housing benefit, also gets paid to people that are out of work, the majority of those benefits go to people in work, on low wages
- Those affected the policy announced by GO yesterday, the long term unemployed, make up about 180,000 out of the 2.5 million currently officially unemployed in the UK

So, despite the stuff that certain politicians might spout, the public coffers are not being bled dry by an army of wasters who refuse to work.

The unemployment benefit we pay to the long term unemployed makes up about 0.4% of the welfare bill, and 0.06% of total public spending. It's an absolute fucking irrelevance in terms of money. And there's almost no chance that any workfare scheme will save any more money than it costs to set up and administer.

So why do it?

Just to give rise to the sort of headlines and the sorts of reactions that have been about in the last few days. To reinforce the message that it's the shiftless and workshy that are at fault for their own circumstances, and to set the employed and the unemployed against each other.

The latest twist, no non-contributory benefits of any kind to anyone under 25 is even better. Anyone care to open a book on when the first workhouse will open?

 

[LucienSanchez]

Female, wispy-voiced, acoustic cover versions... mainly found in adverts, this aberration has been prevalent for a year now. And I fucking hate it.

[Peter Venkman]

Female, wispy-voiced, acoustic cover versions... mainly found in adverts, this aberration has been prevalent for a year now. And I fucking hate it.

I totally concur, adverts like the John Lewis Christmas ad last year with Gabrielle Aplin whispering to FGTH's The Power of Love.

[LucienSanchez]

Yep, just like that. It's horrible.

[Reg Smeeton]

The latest twist, no non-contributory benefits of any kind to anyone under 25 is even better. Anyone care to open a book on when the first workhouse will open?

The young don't tend to vote or engage in the political system, so are therefore an easy target. Most of the relatively small number, approx 200,000, affected by this will be single mothers....so on the game for them.

[horlock07]

I'll put aside the presence of that word in the first sentence, and just assume it's an error.

My issue with this whole policy, and the "me to, me to" version of it that Labour are also peddling is that it pays absolutely no attention to the facts in relation to welfare spending. Which are, in no particular order:

- Predicted Public spending for 2013 is £718billion
- The total welfare bill of £112billion a year across local and national government
- Unemployed benefits make up a £6billion or so
- Although some of the other welfare spending, like housing benefit, also gets paid to people that are out of work, the majority of those benefits go to people in work, on low wages
- Those affected the policy announced by GO yesterday, the long term unemployed, make up about 180,000 out of the 2.5 million currently officially unemployed in the UK

So, despite the stuff that certain politicians might spout, the public coffers are not being bled dry by an army of wasters who refuse to work.

The unemployment benefit we pay to the long term unemployed makes up about 0.4% of the welfare bill, and 0.06% of total public spending. It's an absolute fucking irrelevance in terms of money. And there's almost no chance that any workfare scheme will save any more money than it costs to set up and administer.

So why do it?

Just to give rise to the sort of headlines and the sorts of reactions that have been about in the last few days. To reinforce the message that it's the shiftless and workshy that are at fault for their own circumstances, and to set the employed and the unemployed against each other.

The latest twist, no non-contributory benefits of any kind to anyone under 25 is even better. Anyone care to open a book on when the first workhouse will open?

 

I apologise if the word voluntary was misguided.

However to respond with some arbitrary figures of my own...

So by your own figures that 180,000 people who at present are getting at least £56.80 a week, so thats a total cost of roughly £531.6m a year, now I accept that when one considers the overall welfare bill this isn't going to change the world but to suggest that it isn't worth doing does seem a little flippant.

Its also interesting that you mention that this doesn't account for an 'army of people' when one considers that the present army totals roughly 100k, so actually its considerably larger than what we call an army - but I am being flippant myself here.

I actually agree that private business benefiting from these peoples time isn't necessary correct, but there is quite enough that needs to be done in the public and private sector. I just get irritated by all these arguments that attack any changes to the welfare state when it plainly isn't working.

I agree wholeheartedly that this is just a case of political posturing, a factor that all parties are guilty of, and trust me I have no great love for the tories, even more so after they have buggered up my commute to work all this week.

Incidentally if we want to consider unecessary public costs can we discuss the party conferences. Seeing the scale of police and disruption on Manchester this week is truely staggering, it must be costing an absolute fortune, but before anyone blames the tories it would be exactly the same whatever the colour of the ruling party. So why are we paying for it?

[dagrumpymunki]

I apologise if the word voluntary was misguided.

However to respond with some arbitrary figures of my own...

So by your own figures that 180,000 people who at present are getting at least £56.80 a week, so thats a total cost of roughly £531.6m a year, now I accept that when one considers the overall welfare bill this isn't going to change the world but to suggest that it isn't worth doing does seem a little flippant.

Its also interesting that you mention that this doesn't account for an 'army of people' when one considers that the present army totals roughly 100k, so actually its considerably larger than what we call an army - but I am being flippant myself here.

I actually agree that private business benefiting from these peoples time isn't necessary correct, but there is quite enough that needs to be done in the public and private sector. I just get irritated by all these arguments that attack any changes to the welfare state when it plainly isn't working.

I agree wholeheartedly that this is just a case of political posturing, a factor that all parties are guilty of, and trust me I have no great love for the tories, even more so after they have buggered up my commute to work all this week.

Incidentally if we want to consider unecessary public costs can we discuss the party conferences. Seeing the scale of police and disruption on Manchester this week is truely staggering, it must be costing an absolute fortune, but before anyone blames the tories it would be exactly the same whatever the colour of the ruling party. So why are we paying for it?

My figures aren't arbitrary, they're the governments own numbers.

And I don't have an issue with doing something about the welfare bill. I've been a higher rate tax payer for years and I'd prefer my taxes were spent on something more useful than, for example, subsidising the incomes of millions of families that have two adults in full time work that still don't have enough money to live.

A huge amount of the welfare bill goes in this area, effectively making up to a subsistence level the pay packets of (current buzz phrase) "hard working families", allowing a bunch of huge multinational firms to get away with paying below a living wage and boosting their P&L accounts.

Massive amounts also go on state pensions; what should be a safety net for the minority of the population that reach pensionable age without adequate pension provision has become the norm for millions of people as employers having raided pension funds in the good old days of rising investment income now plead poverty and limit or close schemes altogether.

My issues with this whole argument is what a massively ideological distraction it is, and not even an original one. Blame the poor, blame immigrants, blame the unions. Heard it all before.

The only thing that's changed is the utter failure of the "opposition" to offer an alternative narrative. To link to another current news story, the mail might be trying to paint young Ed as a chip of the old block, but I think old Ralph probably spins in his grave at some of the things Labour comes out with now.

[Ardiles]

Loving this thread at the moment.  Shades of TEF 2010!

[Empathy Sloth]

Female, wispy-voiced, acoustic cover versions... mainly found in adverts, this aberration has been prevalent for a year now. And I fucking hate it.

Gets on my tits too.

[4D]

Perhaps the higher rate tax should be increased in percentage terms. Spread the wealth 

[Simon Pieman]

I know sod all about criminal law, but from the outside looking in, the Detective acts in a seemingly serene way that not only caused a murderer to admit to killing a missing girl, but also to killing another one and locating both of their bodies.

Our law system is fucked if the policeman is punished, and the MURDERER does not get the second life sentence he should get. I signed the petition.

The problem is that would set a precedent. I would feel really uncomfortable if the police could use an off the record "confession" as a means of convicting me of a "crime" for which they have no other evidence of me committing.

[dagrumpymunki]

Perhaps the higher rate tax should be increased in percentage terms. Spread the wealth 

I'd agree. I know 40% and 45% tax rates look large, but when you look at the impact of indirect taxation, the top 10% of income earners pay a smaller proportion of their gross incomes in tax than everybody else in the country.

The headline grabbing "we've taken xxxx of the poorest out of the taxation system altogether" that Clegg likes to trot out is a lie that ignores the 20 year trend of reducing taxes on corporations and the wealthy and increasing indirect taxation that impacts most on those at the bottom of the income scale.

It's all a bit more fundamental than that though. The trend for decades has been for multinational corporations to effectively hold a gun to the heads of national governments to reduce tax rates, allow them to drive down wages and worsen terms and conditions or they'll move to a "more business friendly" location.

As a result the trend throughout the (western at least) world is for corporations to get richer, most people to get poorer, and the state to get more indebted.

I look at the future and I've got to admit I find it a bit scary. I'm bloody glad I'm not in my early 20's trying to make a start in the world.